Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 05:08 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

The link is, "We can't disprove God. We also can't disprove the teapot. But we don't believe in the teapot. There's no teapot religion. Therefore we shouldn't believe in God."

It's an end run.

I can't prove my thing THEREFORE your thing is wrong. That's some twisted logic right there.

(And for the record, Dawkins does exactly that in The God Delusion.)

No, he doesn't. He uses that as a simile. He points out that since we have no evidence of the teapot, we don't believe it. And we have no evidence for God.

Your dislike of Dawkins harms your arguments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
08-03-2013, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 05:25 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 05:08 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

The link is, "We can't disprove God. We also can't disprove the teapot. But we don't believe in the teapot. There's no teapot religion. Therefore we shouldn't believe in God."

It's an end run.

I can't prove my thing THEREFORE your thing is wrong. That's some twisted logic right there.

(And for the record, Dawkins does exactly that in The God Delusion.)

No, he doesn't. He uses that as a simile. He points out that since we have no evidence of the teapot, we don't believe it. And we have no evidence for God.

Your dislike of Dawkins harms your arguments.

Just for the record, the teapot ain't Dawkins', it's Bertrand's. Not that that should make any difference.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
08-03-2013, 05:45 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Chas.

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attack. Also. 1:32.





Hey, Girly.

It is Bertrand's. But Dawkins really runs with it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
08-03-2013, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 07:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Ah fuck it, the info I wanted was right there.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(07-03-2013 04:38 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I feel its a valuable trait to know when you are wrong, and concede. And, although very unlikely, if God were proven to exist, most here who had claimed otherwise, would admit they were wrong.

Now, I just saw Heywood Jebusblome claim that he would concede if God were proven not to exist. I'm just wondering if its even possible to prove something doesn't exist. Even if the method is out of our grasp, how COULD it be done?


Simply define "existence" and see where it leads you.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
09-03-2013, 01:20 AM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2013 01:31 AM by Chas.)
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 05:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Chas.

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attack. Also. 1:32.
Matt,
It was not an ad hominem. It is a criticism of your argumentation style.
You have made highly negative comments on Dawkins before and it does not add to your arguments.
-Chas

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-03-2013, 02:48 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 05:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Chas.

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attack. Also. 1:32.





Hey, Girly.

It is Bertrand's. But Dawkins really runs with it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Not sure if I'm being ignorant here but it doesn't seem like Dawkin's is making the case that because we don't believe in the teapot we shouldn't believe in god.

The main point is that just because we can't disprove the existence of something is no reason to believe in it. He then uses the example the teapot as something else we can't disprove.

He seems to be taking the argument that because you can't disprove something it is plausible to believe it to its logical, though absurd, end.

I think it may be possible to disprove the existence of a specific god if theists would hold the goal posts in place. But in order to do that the theist apologist would have to have to define existence and also define their god. Then using their own definitions we might then to logically argue against their definition of god having the quality of existence defined by them. Don't think I've met the theist who would do both. Please note the emphasis on may because there are some definitions of both (god and existence) that would make it impossible to disprove non-existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Andrew_Njonjo's post
09-03-2013, 07:52 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Chas.

That, to be blunt, is bullshit.

I have defended Dawkins ideas against members of THIS FORUM countless times.

I just don't support ALL of his ideas because I'm not credulous.

An ad hominem attack is an argument against one's opponent rather than against their ideas. You did EXACTLY THAT when you suggested that my entire argument, only a small fraction of which had to do with Dawkins, was invalid because of a personal issue, that you fabricated, between myself and Dawkins. The implication is that I haven't provided a detailed and reasoned argument, I'm just out to get Dawkins. It was a textbook ad hominem attack and it wasn't appreciated.

I have NEVER attacked Dawkins himself. I have criticised SOME of his ideas because they're flawed. They remain flawed, which is why I repeatedly criticise them over time.

So unless you plan to engage directly with the actual substance of what I said, then we're done here. I will no longer speak to this.

Hey, Andrew.

I agree, part of Dawkins' argument is that just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean we should therefore believe it. As we say in French, tu as raison.

While I don't debate that for a moment, his argument doesn't stop there.

But the point I'm making also lies beyond Dawkins and it doesn't hinge 100% on him. He was just offered as an example.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(09-03-2013 07:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Chas.

That, to be blunt, is bullshit.

I have defended Dawkins ideas against members of THIS FORUM countless times.

I just don't support ALL of his ideas because I'm not credulous.

An ad hominem attack is an argument against one's opponent rather than against their ideas. You did EXACTLY THAT when you suggested that my entire argument, only a small fraction of which had to do with Dawkins, was invalid because of a personal issue, that you fabricated, between myself and Dawkins. The implication is that I haven't provided a detailed and reasoned argument, I'm just out to get Dawkins. It was a textbook ad hominem attack and it wasn't appreciated.

I have NEVER attacked Dawkins himself. I have criticised SOME of his ideas because they're flawed. They remain flawed, which is why I repeatedly criticise them over time.

So unless you plan to engage directly with the actual substance of what I said, then we're done here. I will no longer speak to this.

I will return to the original point. You said:
Quote:The link is, "We can't disprove God. We also can't disprove the teapot. But we don't believe in the teapot. There's no teapot religion. Therefore we shouldn't believe in God."

It's an end run.

I can't prove my thing THEREFORE your thing is wrong. That's some twisted logic right there.

(And for the record, Dawkins does exactly that in The God Delusion.)


And I disagree as you have misrepresented the argument. He has not created a syllogism as you have, he has used the teapot argument as a simile.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-03-2013, 08:34 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Hey, Chas.

No apology present, but better. That being said, all you've offered is a counter with no support. You simply interpret his statements differently. And you still haven't responded to my wider point. So I recognise what you're saying, I just have no reason to accept it and less to abandon my position.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: